The 17th Amendment and Mark Levin

April 11th, 2013 | Mark Levin

[Jacquerie]

Mark is working on another book. Every night it seems, he wants to bust out and talk about it, but his publishers have put the ixnay on too much disclosure. Still, he shows a little leg now and then. That happened in the second hour of his show last Thursday, April 11, 2013.

With the help of sixteen rinos, Dingy Harry got 68 votes to proceed with a gun control bill that few, if any Senators had read. After wailing on the lack of process and regular order, Mark focused on the nature of the Senate and how it differed from the institution of our Framers.

Mark Levin:

“The Federal government’s powers were supposed to be limited. Defined. Enumerated. The Federal government wasn’t supposed to have all of this power. It wasn’t supposed to have plenary power; the plenary power was with the States. (Relates how in times past one could easily have a face to face with State legislators from your home town) Some States are great, some suck. But that’s not the point. The point is that the federal government is worse than any State; is it not? That’s what happens when power is concentrated. That’s’ what happens when limits are thrown off. So, we’re fighting battles we shouldn’t have to fight, and they’re coming one after another after another. They’re bipartisan. I want you to keep something in mind, this is very important, IMHO.” (wails on the 16 rinos who threw in with the rats over gun control/2A.)

“I want to ask you this question, what’s the purpose of the US Senate? I’m serious. Originally, the US Senate was supposed to be made up of members who were sent there, to this body, from the State legislatures. See, the States that gave birth to the federal government, they WANTED A SAY in what the federal government did. So they said, okay, we’ll have a popularly elected House of Representatives elected every two years; there was a lot of debate over the term, but they settled on two years, and then they said, ‘We’re going to have this Senate. And one of the main reason s we’re going to have this Senate is, well of course the main reason is WE THE STATES need a say in this, some position in this government we are creating. But they also said, look, the Senate will slow down, ya’ know what might become a fad, or a movement, a temporary sort of mob activity, because we’ll give them longer terms, and because Senators won’t be elected directly by the same people who elect House members, but they’ll be elected indirectly by the same people, through their State legislatures.”

“Instead what we have here really is a body that has no point. There’s no point to it. Do these Senators really represent their States? I mean this guy Wicker and his vote today, does he really represent Mississippi? These two jerks from Georgia, do they really represent GA? No, they got on a boat, with Manchin, who really doesn’t represent West Virginia, and “Mark what do you mean, he doesn’t really represent, I mean the people elected him . . . “ No, I didn’t say he didn’t represent the people of GA or MS, I said the States of MS or GA, because right now they have no say in anything. So what’s the point of the US Senate, will somebody please tell me? I don’t know exactly. Well, I know what the Constitutional powers are, THAT’S NOT THE POINT. My point is why have two bodies if they’re both popularly elected?” No matter how you change the terms, they don’t represent the States, or they represent a district, yiptido!"

"I don’t think there is a more useless body than the US Senate, in terms of its structure today. And how did it happen? In 1913, that the 17th Amendment was ratified, giving direct elections to Senators. Well, it’s the same way things happen today. Radical populists, and so-called Progressives, whom I call Statists, . . . because in the end that’s all they are, big government types, they pushed this movement, . . . both the 16th and 17th Amendments in the same year. (more on amendments in general) This movement has undermined our system, as it does today. This is why there is a disconnect, there’s an absolute disconnect, so if you’re a Senator you can change from day to day who it is you think you represent or claim to represent. (rant on who or what do Senators represent, the people, states . . . ) IOW you do whatever the hell you want in the name of the people, the Constitution . . . and so forth . . . and you’re really doing it TO the people and UNDERMINING the Constitution. It’s an ugly, bizarre institution right now."

"That’s what I’m saying. We understand the House of Representatives. We may not like what it does but we understand what it is supposed to do, don’t we? Its peculiar, this Senate. I’m going to talk of this down the road. . . . because I think what’s necessary here, well . . . I’ll talk more about it down the road, because in many ways I think we’re banging our heads against the wall."

[1010RD]

So in the fight by liberals for national uniformity (to their will and vision) what’s more important? Money.

Block grant it to the states and starve the federal government. It’s the supposition of liberals that the federal government is better than the state government. That’s not true.

Let redundancies that focus on intrastate issues be resolved within that state. Block grant the funds, ideally without limitation, and federalism thrives.

How else can you undo the federal monster politically? This is feasible and has the political cover necessary - we’re keeping the same funds, moving them closer to the people/issue/problem and therefore the solution.

People don’t trust or believe in DC.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree that block granting back to the states is more feasible than cutting off the money flow to the federal government at the start. We'll just have to live with the fact of the feds siphoning off money from the states just to (we hope) give it back to them later.

My original point had to do with party bloc politics as the motive for Senators, not state issues. The point of the Senate spending recklessly was supported by Senators owing fealty to the party because of the necessity of running for elections. They become obligated to endorse the party agenda because of accepting campaign cash.

This is also true regarding the liberal agenda that often conflicts with the wishes of the people of certain individual states. Liberals believe in national uniformity, as you state, whereas Republicans believe in more local control. My point is that I think it would be harder for Senators to fall in line with a liberal national uniformity agenda if they were appointed by their state legislatures. It's the need for campaign funds that pushes them to support the party bloc agenda over their respective state agenda.

In this case, the "money" is campaign money, not crony capitalism money, which is also a problem. My concern is that block granting back to the states is a de facto transfer of power from Congress to the states, which might make it also a difficult task to accomplish. Today, some money goes back to the states via federal programs, but much money also goes offshore as foreign aid. I'm not against foreign aid, but I want wise foreign aid. I don't understand why Obama would bypass a Congressional ban on purchasing Russian helicopters, when he could spend that money here on our own aeronautics industry. The same goes with funding questionable groups or countries, while at the same time claiming hurt with needed domestic services. If states only sent enough money to Washington to fund Constitutional services, and then let the states perform those services in place of the federal government, we wouldn't become the world's ATM machine.

If that vision were to occur, it would fly in the face of liberal national uniformity. They would complain that Rhode Island or Idaho won't be able to offer the same quality of social services as California or Massachusetts, so it won't be fair that the random act of being born there limits one's access to quality services. Then we'd get Obama's favorite strawman argument, which child is more important to you, the sick child in Idaho or the starving child in Rhode Island? Liberals think they need a behemoth federal government to make it fair and equal across the entire country.

-PJ